monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@coldjoint,

the usual far right nonsense. The electorasl college was designed to give smaller less populous statestes an edge in voting for prez, to entice them to join the revamped US the founding fathers set up. It was purely political from its inception. As the country became more smalld democratic and one person one vote became a guiding principle, since we are after all one country, the EC got more and more anachronistic. The idea of giving some people more power to choose a president thann other peoplehave has become thoroughly dated. to large numbers of Americans. In an attempt to make sure electors vote for the people's choice in their staste, rather than go off and actually vote for who they, the electors might want, 48 of the 50 states have mandated by law the electors in their state MUST vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state. 48 pf the 50 states tie the electoral vote directly to the populR VOTE. aND scotus HGAS LET THAT STAND FOR SEVERAL DECADES.

4 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

The electorasl college was designed to give smaller less populous statestes an edge in voting for prez,

Where does it say that? Produce a source, not rhetoric.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

So if nal and it seems to be since it's been in effect for decades, then that's constiitu, t e taking. If you believe we're one country and you accept one person one vote is an American value, and you're damned sure anti-amercan if hyou don't, that's theeqal rights path we shouhe the National Popular Vote Compact, which says the electors in participating state must vote for the winner of the national popular vote should also be constitutional. It is after all just saying electors must vote for the winner of the election, not a radical idea and more small d democratic. And since no amendment change was necessary for the current status tieing electors to the winner of the state po;ular vote, it's hard to see wy amendlment change would be necessary for this reform. .

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

of course republicans only care about amassing power for themselves and hoarding it for themselves, so they're likely to keep pushing their santi-american agenda.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The constitution doesn't say much about how the electoral college is actually supposed to function, what it can and cannot do, so its clearly up to the states to flesh the details out.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

the usual far right nonsense. The electorasl college was designed to give smaller less populous statestes an edge in voting for prez, to entice them to join the revamped US the founding fathers set up . . .

Bingo . . . that's exactly right. Without it, the Democrats would hold the White House forever, relying on New England, New York, California, Oregon and Washington to elect their candidates. I thoroughly approve of the EC.

2 Replies

Quote:

so its clearly up to the states to flesh the details out.

You had better get 3/4 0f the states. That is what it takes for an amendment.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I thoroughly approve of the EC.

It would appear to be totally necessary, all considered.

I'm all for term limits for congress, and no dual citizenship allowed, either.

1 Reply

@Builder,

I think the idea of "one person one vote" beats any 18th century collegial gimmickry designed to shore up slavery-based economies.

2 Replies

The usual idiots who get all frothing at the mouth about free speech must have missed this.

Quote:

United States civil rights groups announced on Monday that they filed a lawsuit against a public university in the US state of Georgia, after the school cancelled a speaking engagement of a journalist who refused to sign a pledge to not boycott the Israeli government.

In a news conference, officials from the Georgia Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Georgia), the CAIR Legal Defense Fund and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund said they filed a free speech lawsuit after Georgia Southern University canceled a talk by Abby Martin, a journalist and rights activist, over her refusal to sign an oath that she would not "engage in a boycott of Israel".

Martin says she was invited as a keynote speaker at a media conference in Georgia Southern University on February 28.

"As the conference date approached I was told that I must sign a contract pledging to not participate in boycotts against Israel," Martin said during Monday's news conference.

"Knowing that this was a violation against my constitutional right to free speech and right to protest, I informed them that I could not sign such a contract. I was then cancelled as the speaker from the conference," she said.

Martin said that although she has been a vocal advocate of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for years, it was not the topic of her speech.

"I was scheduled to give a talk as a journalist about media and media literacy," she said.

Organisers earlier announced that the conference had been cancelled without providing an explanation. Officials at the university were not immediately available for comment.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/civil-rights-groups-sue-state-israel-boycott-law-200210180553709.html

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Utter nonsense--in fact, the small states which the creation of the Senate and the Electoral College were intended to conciliate, were lead by New York and New Jersey, neither of which was a slave states. It's also utter bullsh*t, though a popular historical fallacy, that the American economy was successful because of slavery. It was successful despite slavery. So, for example, the most common export of the nascent United States was grain--not the tobacco, or the later cotton which supported the slave state economies. The slave states uniformly opposed a tariff because they wanted to continue their trade relations with England and France, whereas the tariff sought to protect American manufacturing.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Slavery is profitable, or it wouldn't be done. But that's an aside. My point is that the EC is an old and ackward tool, suited to 18th century conditions but not justifiable today.

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

You miss the point. states have to have electors but the constitution doesn't regulate how they're chosen or what they can do or what the states can say about what they do.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I don't live in California, but it has as much population as 22 other states combined. No one tells us where we have to live, but why do you think those people who liveCalifornia shouldn't have equal proportional weight in choosing a pres as those other states given all the people who've chosen to live there?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

suited to 18th century conditions but not justifiable today.

Don't you have enough problems in France? Our system was designed to last if our Constitution was honored. The Democrats only want to win and the fact the Constitution is in their way should tell even people who do not live here something about their lack of respect for the rule of law.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The usual idiots who get all frothing at the mouth about free speech must have missed this.

It could be because those "idiots " have free speech, you do not. Plus anything from Al J on free speech is ludicrous. Islamics know nothing about freedom, let alone free speech.

0 Replies

During the Federal Convention of 1787, consideration was given to the Southern states when the founders debated the election of an Executive Magistrate through popular vote or electors. James Madison wrote, "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

If you don't like democracy, just say it. Don't hide behind an old piece of paper as if it was some sort of god.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Thanks; this proves Setanta wrong, I guess.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

If you don't like democracy

We are not a Democracy, by design. True democracy is just mob rule.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know